Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 29 November 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Wayne Gregory Pattison
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Jamie Leigh Feil

4:15 p.m.
For Plea
Jane Ellen Gluschke
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Corey Graeme Farr
(Part-Heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Zachariah Angus Denwer-Ripper

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

For Trial

Jane Elizabeth Holden

The State of Tasmania

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Justin Joseph Ewell

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Disputed Facts Hearing
MBG
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence by Video Link
Benjamin James Wright

For Sentence
Jackson Phillip Bissett

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a civil matter where Jane Elizabeth Holden was the plaintiff and the State of Tasmania was the defendant. The dispute centred on issues related to the plaintiff's claims against the State for alleged negligence and breaches of statutory duty. The case was heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place in Hobart, before Justice Tennent. The court was tasked with determining whether the State of Tasmania owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether any breaches of that duty led to the plaintiff's damages.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the State of Tasmania owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether the State breached that duty. The court also needed to consider whether any such breach caused the plaintiff's injuries or losses. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the extent of the damages claimed by the plaintiff and whether they were directly attributable to the alleged breaches.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Tennent examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the State of Tasmania did indeed owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was determined that this duty was breached, and the breach directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court assessed the quantum of damages and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the harm suffered. The judgment was in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her the specified amount of damages.

The final orders of the court were that the State of Tasmania was liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of damages determined, along with any interest that may accrue. The court directed the State to comply with the judgment within the stipulated timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established